2011 (4) TMI 1174

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... struction cannot be held to be construction of a ‘dam’ as normally understood. Thus the appellants have not made out a prima facie case for a full waiver of pre-deposit, principal contractor to deposit a sum of Rs. 20.00 lakhs (Rupees twenty lakhs only) under the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944
S/Shri S.S. Kang, P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. S/Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate, S.P. Majumder, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Chakraborty, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (T)]. - There are two Stay Applications which are being considered. The first relates to the Order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-I against M/s. Samal Buil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mmissioner confirmed a demand of Service Tax of Rs. 1,12,56,495,00 and imposed equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Act and also imposed a penalty equal to Rs. 200.00 for every day under Section 76 ibid and another penalty of Rs. 1,000.00 under Section 77 ibid. 3. Learned Sr. Advocate for M/s. National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. would submit that the Ash Pond which they have constructed on behalf of NTPC, is in fact a dam and the construction of such dam is excluded from the scope of taxable service falling under the category of 'commercial or industrial construction service' as also under the scope of 'works contract service'. Learned Commissioner, however, held that the construction activity undertaken by the appli .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... palli - 2009 (14) S.T.R. 532 (Tri.-Chennai); (ii) Rubita Gidwani v. CST, Mumbai - 2010 (20) S.T.R. 648 (Tri. -Mumbai); (iii) Newton Engg. & Chemicals v. CCE, Vadodora - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 378 (Tri.-Ahm.); (iv) BBR (India) Limited v. CCE, Bangalore-III - 2006 (4) S.T.R. 269 (Tri. -Bang.); (v) Qikos v. CCE, Bangalore-III - 2007 (5) S.T.R. 229 (Tri. -Bang.). 6. We have considered the submissions of both sides and find that both the parties, i.e. the principal contractor as well as the sub-contractor, are denying the liability of Service Tax on the services which have been rendered by them. Prima facie, we find that the services rendered in this case, that is, construction of ash pond and civil works for ash dyke for a thermal power pla .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X